Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
I can't agree wth that analysis Acc. I don't know much about Lincoln and the Civil War (later I will read my Samuel Eliot Morrison to fix that particular lack of knowledge) but I do know that Bush has failed already. He isn't doughty and determined as Churchill (he's also more sober than Churchill was). Nor is he in the same mould as Roosevelt, who knew he was dying but was determined to see an Allied victory. He has already lost. He refuses to admit it. In that sense and that sense only he is more like Churchill's and Roosevelt's opposing number in Europe (I hesitate to mention the H word lest someone invoke Godwin's Law). Throwing in more and more troops when you're winning - Churchill and Roosevelt (and I have to say Stalin) - is a different proposition from throwing in more and more troops when you're losing or, arguably, have already lost.
|
I'm not claiming he's right, I'm only trying to see it from his point of view. His whole family has a realy sense of history, and their influence on it. I don't think he is more than mildly concerned about the short-term.